Why Is Obama's Growing DHS Army Buying Armored Vehicles?

Security: In addition to stockpiling over a billion bullets and thousands of semiautomatic weapons the feds would deny U.S. citizens, the vehicle of choice for fighting the counterinsurgency war in Iraq is appearing on U.S. streets.

The sequestration question du jour is why the Department of Homeland Security, busy releasing hundreds, if not thousands, of deportable and detained illegal aliens due to budget constraints, is buying several thousand Mine Resistant Armored Protection (MRAP) vehicles?

And just who are they intended to be used against?

This acquisition comes on top of the recent news of the stockpiling by DHS of more than 1.6 billion (with a 'b') bullets of various calibers, enough by one calculation to fight the equivalent of a 24-year Iraq War, and the ordering of some 7,000 5.56x45mm NATO "personal defense weapons" (PDW) — also known as "assault weapons" when owned by civilians.

The Department of Homeland Security (through the U.S. Army Forces Command) recently retrofitted 2,717 of these MRAP vehicles for service on the streets of the U.S. They were formerly used for counterinsurgency in Iraq.

These vehicles are specifically designed to resist mines and ambush attacks. They use bulletproof windows and are designed to withstand small-arms fire, including smaller-caliber rifles such as a .223 Remington. Does DHS expect a counterinsurgency here?

After IEDs began to take a toll on U.S. military forces in Iraq, the Pentagon ordered a large supply of MRAPs.

"They've taken hits, many, many hits that would have killed soldiers and marines in uparmored Humvees," Adm. Michael Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said in a recent interview.

A DHS officer, Robert Whitaker, stationed in El Paso, Texas, recently proudly described the agency's new armored toy as "Mine-resistant ... we use to deliver our team to high-risk warrant services ... (with) gun ports so we can actually shoot from within the vehicle; you may think it's pretty loud but actually it's not too bad ... we have gun ports there in the back and two on the sides as well. They are designed for .50-caliber weapons."

This is needed to serve warrants? Perhaps it might have been useful at Waco.

So the question is what does DHS need 1.6 billion bullets, 7,000 Ar-15s and 2,700 armored vehicles for?

What are they anticipating or planning for, and why are few in the media and Congress asking about it, particularly in the light of daily apocalyptic bleats from the administration about sequestration cuts?

We have asked if this has anything to do with then-candidate Obama's proposal for a national security force as powerful as the U.S. Army.

In a July 2, 2008, speech in Colorado Springs, Colo., candidate Obama said: "We cannot continue to rely on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives that we've set. We've got to have a civilian national security force that's just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded."

As Judge Andrew Napolitano, a Fox News contributor, recently opined in the Washington Times, "The historical reality of the Second Amendment's protection of the right to keep and bear arms is not that it protects the right to shoot deer. It protects the right to shoot tyrants, and it protects the right to shoot at them effectively, with the same instruments they would use upon us."

No, we are not scanning the sky for black helicopters.

But we are concerned about an administration pushing for ever stricter gun control and de facto gun registration in the form of allegedly universal background checks to which criminals and gangbangers won't comply is arming itself to the teeth.

If weapons of war don't belong on the street, Mr. President, explain these purchases.

Security: In addition to stockpiling over a billion bullets and thousands of semiautomatic weapons the feds would deny U.S. citizens, the vehicle of choice for fighting the counterinsurgency war in Iraq is appearing on U.S. streets.

The sequestration question du jour is why the Department of Homeland Security, busy releasing hundreds, if not thousands, of deportable and detained illegal aliens due to budget constraints, is buying several thousand Mine Resistant Armored Protection (MRAP) vehicles?

And just who are they intended to be used against?

This acquisition comes on top of the recent news of the stockpiling by DHS of more than 1.6 billion (with a 'b') bullets of various calibers, enough by one calculation to fight the equivalent of a 24-year Iraq War, and the ordering of some 7,000 5.56x45mm NATO "personal defense weapons" (PDW) — also known as "assault weapons" when owned by civilians.

The Department of Homeland Security (through the U.S. Army Forces Command) recently retrofitted 2,717 of these MRAP vehicles for service on the streets of the U.S. They were formerly used for counterinsurgency in Iraq.

These vehicles are specifically designed to resist mines and ambush attacks. They use bulletproof windows and are designed to withstand small-arms fire, including smaller-caliber rifles such as a .223 Remington. Does DHS expect a counterinsurgency here?

After IEDs began to take a toll on U.S. military forces in Iraq, the Pentagon ordered a large supply of MRAPs.

"They've taken hits, many, many hits that would have killed soldiers and marines in uparmored Humvees," Adm. Michael Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said in a recent interview.

A DHS officer, Robert Whitaker, stationed in El Paso, Texas, recently proudly described the agency's new armored toy as "Mine-resistant ... we use to deliver our team to high-risk warrant services ... (with) gun ports so we can actually shoot from within the vehicle; you may think it's pretty loud but actually it's not too bad ... we have gun ports there in the back and two on the sides as well. They are designed for .50-caliber weapons."

This is needed to serve warrants? Perhaps it might have been useful at Waco.

So the question is what does DHS need 1.6 billion bullets, 7,000 Ar-15s and 2,700 armored vehicles for?

What are they anticipating or planning for, and why are few in the media and Congress asking about it, particularly in the light of daily apocalyptic bleats from the administration about sequestration cuts?

We have asked if this has anything to do with then-candidate Obama's proposal for a national security force as powerful as the U.S. Army.

In a July 2, 2008, speech in Colorado Springs, Colo., candidate Obama said: "We cannot continue to rely on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives that we've set. We've got to have a civilian national security force that's just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded."

As Judge Andrew Napolitano, a Fox News contributor, recently opined in the Washington Times, "The historical reality of the Second Amendment's protection of the right to keep and bear arms is not that it protects the right to shoot deer. It protects the right to shoot tyrants, and it protects the right to shoot at them effectively, with the same instruments they would use upon us."

No, we are not scanning the sky for black helicopters.

But we are concerned about an administration pushing for ever stricter gun control and de facto gun registration in the form of allegedly universal background checks to which criminals and gangbangers won't comply is arming itself to the teeth.

If weapons of war don't belong on the street, Mr. President, explain these purchases.

See Also

There is no question about whether President Obama — along with Secretary of State John Kerry and the editorial pages of many newspapers — has a particular dislike of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. But there is another question: Why? And the answer is due to an important ...

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu lobbied powerfully against a nuclear agreement with Iran in a well-crafted speech to Congress Tuesday. The problem is that he has now created a zero-sum game with the Obama administration, in which either the president or the prime minister seems likely to ...

Leadership: Among the world's gamier states, there seems to be a new status quo: Kill your opponent. The murder of Boris Nemtsov is the latest such barbarism. It all suggests a void from the U.S. as leader of the free world.The brazen broad-daylight assassination of Nemtsov, a former Russian vice ...

Economy: In his weekly address, President Obama railed against Wall Street for giving "bad advice" that costs American families billions a year. OK, but what about his bad policies that have cost them far more?The president used his precious radio time to lash out at financial advisers for mistakes ...

Cities: The problem with socialism, Margaret Thatcher once noted, is you eventually run out of other people's money. In progressive Chicago, that's hit home as Moody's has cut its credit rating to two grades above "junk."Chicago's finances are staggering under the weight of an unfunded pension ...

Select market data is provided by Interactive Data Corp. Real Time Services. Price and Volume data is delayed 20 minutes unless otherwise noted, is believed accurate but is not warranted or guaranteed by Interactive Data Corp. Real Time Services and is subject to Interactive Data Corp. Real Time Services terms. All times are Eastern United States. *Reflects real-time index prices.